The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nothing in there about +mass.

Do you honestly believe that a negative mass can be more than
a positive mass?

Why not?

Because negative numbers are smaller than positive numbers?

I tried to explain to you the context in which Dirac used those

terms, which to me are more descriptive than "Dark Matter".
At first, I could not be convinced such a thing as neg. mass
and energy could exist at all, and I wondered then if he was
refering to charge or to mass quantities. His explanations of
positrons, particle pairs, and annihilations, made me think
deeper about that.

No one, AFAIK, can explain why objects seem to randomly
appear out of the so-called "quantum vacuum", but Dirac's
positrons explain that they are not random events, but instead
they have a cause behind it. He based his process on Pauli's
Exclusion Principle, which limits orbitals to have no more than
two electrons in each. Pauli determined that only 2 electrons
can occupy each energy level of an atom, and since electrons
freed from an atom are those at the highest energy levels, all
the other electrons move up in turn, leaving an opening for a
free electron to come in at the lowest energy level - the atom's
ground state. Electrons "seek" stability, and free electrons are
free to seek it more easily than those bound to atoms. Free
electrons lose energy in seeking stability, and if they cannot
fit into another atom's ground state, they enter into what Dirac
called an "extraordinary state" where the particles exist having
only negative energy.

Dirac was asked why doesn't it happen that all freed electrons
do not fall into the extraordinary states? Here is Gamow's take
on that:
"Dirac's answer was just as fantastic as his paradoxical particles.
He postulated that quantum levels representing the extra-ordinary
states of elementary particles are already completely filled, and
that the ordinary particles...are simply the excess that cannot be
accommodated at the lower energy-levels because of the Pauli
principle! According to this viewpoint, a vacuum is not really an
empty space; on the contrary, it is a sea of tightly packed particles
of negative mass. We are not aware of these extraordinary
particles because they are distributed uniformly through space....
The ordinary particles that we can observe physically are those
that are prevented by the Pauli principle from giving up their energy
and falling into the negative energy-levels of the extraordinary state;

ordinary particles must maintain their positive mass and all their
familiar physical properties."[George Gamow, "The Exclusion
Principle," (Reprinted from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, July 1959)
23-24.]

Gamow extended Dirac's concepts beyond the electron and
suggested a sea of invisible particles that exists throughout the
universe, and I have equated that to the invisible matter we call
Dark Matter today. I believe that if a particle can lose all +energy,
it must also lose its +mass, since in order to have energy, there
must be also mass, according to E=mc^2 and the Principle of
UnoWhat.

Dirac shows us that Hawking's particle pairs appearing at the
event horizon of a black hole do not appear there by chance or
without reason.

For electrons, the cause that creates its antiparticle - the
positron - is the loss of the electron's energy. I felt then
that if it is possible for an electron to fall below its ground
state level, it could be that the electron can be transformed
into its own anti-particle (like a photon?), or else it could be
freed from the atom. Electrons are freed when they achieve
energy levels higher than the atom can resist, so why should
they do the same when they lose all their energy? We should
expect something different, using the common sense we are
born with. An electron, then, when freed, seeks stability and
while it is seeking, it loses energy until it may fall into Dirac's
extraordinary state and become one of Gamows particles of
the invisible sea. My model extends that sea to one of being
the medium for light, which explains the dual-nature of light.

Particle pairs are said to annihilate immediately upon their
creation, if not instantly except, of course, for Hawking's
particle pairs that separate instead of destroying each
other. If we accept Hawking's posit, particle pairs do not
have to immediately annihilate each other: they could go
their separate ways. That goes against the explanations
for the annihilations, which are that antiparticles can not
exist for long and must immediately annihilate in order to
avoid conflict with the Principle of the Conservation of Mass
and Energy.

That is a nice trick if you can get away with it: Accept the
breaking of natural law if you can keep it to a minimum time.
Such is the state of physics today, a community of lawless
science that demands dispensation for errors since no one
has better ideas than they as to how the universe works.

Putting up my whip and getting back to the issue at hand, I
came to agree with Dirac about negative mass, but since he
did not explain how -mass could have -energy, I left that part
open in my mind. So tell me, anyone, what is -energy?

Quote:

The visible component of the Universe
has a positive mass.

Yes, that's what I said, precisely.

So you are right about one thing.

I'm a piker compared to you; you are right about everything.

The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Obviously, you miscomprehended what you read. By
"component", the article refers to the total amount of
all the DM versus all the RM. He is not talking about
individual particles of matter. He should have said,
"The total amount dark matter mass is more than that
of the +mass." You have also misunderstood what
Dirac meant by "negative mass".

Dirac has nothing to do with this. Nobody but you
thinks that dark matter has anything to do with
Dirac's virtual sea of negative energy (yes Dirac
used the term 'negative energy').

But if this a discussion between you and me, and I am

relating Dirac's concepts the issues here, how can this
have nothing to do with Dirac? Who are you to make
that decision anyway? You who cannot understand
what Dirac meant in using the terms he used?

Quote:

If dark matter has
negative mass, than it cannot have more mass than
the visible component of the universe.

That is your miscomprehension of what you read. You

do not understand your own reference. Your author is
not saying that negative mass has more mass than has
+mass - he is saying that there is more DM mass (neg.
mass), than there is RM (pos. mass). It is clear you
want to learn more, so I am not saying you are dumb.
You just need to learn more, and I am happy to present
you with my ideas, which question all the fairytales that
abound in physics today.

Quote:

And nobody is talking about individual particles
of matter. How could anybody talk about individual
particles of dark matter when nobody knows exactly
what dark matter is made of? The only thing
that can be determined about dark matter is its mass.
It has more mass than the visible universe. The visible
universe has a positive mass. Therefore dark matter
must also have a positive mass.

Obviously, you need to learn some logic. If RM is visible

to us but DM is not, why should we assume they both
have +mass, since we know that we can observe only
objects that have temperature, and those are what we
call real matter?

Quote:

To him, an electron goes into an extraordinary state
when it loses energy to a level below its ground state.

According to Dirac, it goes into a negative energy state.

Yes, but he calls it an extraordinary state and explains that

as "a negative energy state".

Quote:

At that point, the electron has lost its +mass and now
has mass less than zero, which Dirac called negative
mass, as compared to mass that has positive mass.
AFAIK, he made no reference to the amount of mass
involved, nor to any state of charge.

Electrons always had negative charge according to
Dirac. Even the electrons in the negative energy states.
When you elevated an electron out of a negative energy state,
it left a hole, that acted like a positively charged particle
with the same mass as an electron. Of course none of
this is considered to be a valid model of the Universe anymore,
and it never had anything to do with Dark Matter.

By the way, here is what Dirac himself had to say about
his theories. From
nobelprize.virtual.museum/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf
An examination of the behaviour of these states in an electromagnetic
field shows that they correspond to the motion of an electron
with a positive charge instead of the usual negative one - what
the experimenters now call a positron. One might, therefore,
be inclined to assume that electrons in negative-energy states
are just positrons, but this will not do, because the observed
positrons certainly do not have negative energies. We can, however,
establish a connection between electrons in negative-energy states
and positrons, in a rather more indirect way.

We make use of the exclusion principle of Pauli, according to which
there can be only one electron in any state of motion. We now make
the assumptions that in the world as we know it, nearly all the
states of negative energy for the electrons are occupied, with
just one electron in each state, and that a uniform filling of
all the negative-energy states is completely unobservable to us.
Further, any unoccupied negative-energy state, being a departure
from uniformity, is observable and is just a positron.

Note that Dirac says
"One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons
in negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will
not do, because the observed positrons certainly do not
have negative energies."
Positrons are not negative-energy states because they do
not have negative energies. Dirac's "Dark Matter", the electrons
in negative-energy states have negative energy. Of course Dirac
never called this "Dark Matter" and as far as I know he
never really thought about the dark matter astronomers worry about.

Of course not. How could he? No one alive then could have

know about such anomalies.

Quote:

Since it involves the total loss of energy, the mass
becomes invisible.

Why? Neutrinos have mass and energy but they are
invisible. You cannot see a neutrino.

A neutrino has mass only when a muon neutrino interacts

with a tau and begins to oscillate, from what I've read.

Quote:

That is because for objects to be
visible to us, they must have energy.

No, for an object to be visible to us it must be able
to interact with light, and there must be some light
with which it can interact.

Right. It must be able to interact with light. Exactly what I say.

If DM particles interact w/light, they can be transformed into
RM and become visible to us.

Quote:

To have energy,
they must have temperature, and for that, they must
have +mass, according to E=mc^2 and the Principle
of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Those are
the objects we can see. The DM is the negative mass
matter Dirac refers to and which I propose is the DM
of today that is invisible to us.

What you propose has nothing to do with what the
rest of the world calls dark matter.

Ask me if I care what you think.

You have
already agreed that your definition of dark matter
has nothing to do with the standard definition.

There is no std. definition of DM, only those stupid

statements from naked emperors that show little if
any logic or reasonable thought. Believe those dummies
if you wish, but guess what that will make you?

Quote:

Dark matter has positive mass,

No one knows that except you, and you believe what

dummies tell you.

Quote:

and dark matter
gravitates just like any other matter.

Then why should it be any different that any other matter?

That is
how the term is defined.

No, that is how you define it, not me.

Your definition is also at
odd's with Dirac's where electrons can have negative energy.
You insist that your dark matter cannot have negative
energy, so it cannot be the same stuff Dirac was talking
about.

Now you've taken to out-and-out lying from unrestricted

exaggeration, no? I told you that would corrupt you sooner
than later. I did not say DM cannot have -energy, so that ploy
is just a red herring thrown in to show me I should have mercy
on you since you have nothing left to argue with.

Do you honestly believe that a negative mass can be more than
a positive mass?

Why not?

Because negative numbers are smaller than positive numbers?

I tried to explain to you the context in which Dirac used those
terms, which to me are more descriptive than "Dark Matter".

But the people who are talking about there being more
dark matter than visible matter are not talking about anything
to do with Dirac. You cannot apply your definition
of dark matter to any quote about dark matter that you
read.

<snip recap of Dirac's theory>

You could have read most of that in that link
I provided you, in Dirac's own words.

Quote:

Putting up my whip and getting back to the issue at hand, I
came to agree with Dirac about negative mass, but since he
did not explain how -mass could have -energy, I left that part
open in my mind. So tell me, anyone, what is -energy?

Why not read what Dirac said about it? His particles
have negative energy. He is quite explicit about that.

Quote:

The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Obviously, you miscomprehended what you read. By
"component", the article refers to the total amount of
all the DM versus all the RM. He is not talking about
individual particles of matter. He should have said,
"The total amount dark matter mass is more than that
of the +mass." You have also misunderstood what
Dirac meant by "negative mass".

Dirac has nothing to do with this. Nobody but you
thinks that dark matter has anything to do with
Dirac's virtual sea of negative energy (yes Dirac
used the term 'negative energy').

But if this a discussion between you and me, and I am
relating Dirac's concepts the issues here, how can this
have nothing to do with Dirac?

But you are interpeting other people's statments
in terms of your own personal theories. The
person who made the statement
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
'visible' component of the universe"
is talking strictly about positive mass. Dirac has
nothing to do with that statement.

How do you think they determined that the dark matter
component has more mass than the visible component?
How did they measure the amount of mass the dark matter
had, if dark matter is invisible and cannot be detected
directly?

Quote:

Who are you to make
that decision anyway? You who cannot understand
what Dirac meant in using the terms he used?

I understand Dirac just fine. Better than you
apparently, because you do not think that Dirac's "dark matter"
has negative energy, despite the fact that Dirac
clearly says that it does.

Quote:

If dark matter has
negative mass, than it cannot have more mass than
the visible component of the universe.

That is your miscomprehension of what you read. You
do not understand your own reference. Your author is
not saying that negative mass has more mass than has
+mass - he is saying that there is more DM mass (neg.
mass), than there is RM (pos. mass). It is clear you
want to learn more, so I am not saying you are dumb.
You just need to learn more, and I am happy to present
you with my ideas, which question all the fairytales that
abound in physics today.

Such delusions of grandeur.

You just reveal that you simply have no understanding
of what people mean when they say 'dark matter'. I'll
try one last time to explain it to you. Here is a simple
hypothetical situation which captures the basic reason
why dark matter was proposed in the first place. Suppose
we observe a lone luminous object, a star perhaps, travelling
in a circle with a radius 200,000,000 km, and a period
of 1 year. There is no other visible object nearby, just
this lone star that goes around and around in circles.
Now we can explain this in a couple of ways
1) the star has thrusters, and is accelerating under
its own power, in which case it is likely not a
star but a spaceship of some sort
2) some totally unknown force is at work that makes
the star move
3) the star is orbitting some body that we, for whatever
reason, cannot see
Explanation 3 is the dark matter hypothesis. The nice thing about 3
is that we can actually figure out some stuff about this
unseen object using our theory of gravity.

According to Kepler's laws (which can be derived from Newton's
laws, and which are also valid according to Einstein's theories
unless extreme speeds and masses are involved) the following
is true for any object in orbit.
T^2 / R^3 = (4 * pi^2) / (G * M )
where T is the period of the orbit, R is the radius, G
is the gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the
object being orbited. In this case, M is the mass of
the dark matter object that we cannot see. Rewriting
the equation we get
M = (4 * pi^2) * R^3 / ( T^2 * G)
R and T are positive numbers by definition (a radius
cannot be negative, and neither can an orbital period).
Therefore M is a positive number. We can even figure
out what positive number it is
M = (4 * pi^2) * (2*10^^3 / (31536000^2 * G)
= 1.18*10^17 kg
So we know how much dark matter there is. We even
know where it is, to a certain degree. The center
of that mass must be located at the center of the circle.
We do not know the dimensions of the dark matter object,
or what it is made of, or why we cannot see it, but we
do know where it is centered, and how much mass it has.

The actual situation and calculations are much more involved,
but it is the same basic idea. And given the assumptions
used and the way the calculation works, the answer will
always be positive. The way dark matter is detected,
and the way we determine how much of it there is, and
where it is, is by assuming that our gravitational theories
are correct, and that dark matter has positive mass that
attracts other mass, just like visible mass.

Quote:

And nobody is talking about individual particles
of matter. How could anybody talk about individual
particles of dark matter when nobody knows exactly
what dark matter is made of? The only thing
that can be determined about dark matter is its mass.
It has more mass than the visible universe. The visible
universe has a positive mass. Therefore dark matter
must also have a positive mass.

Obviously, you need to learn some logic. If RM is visible
to us but DM is not, why should we assume they both
have +mass, since we know that we can observe only
objects that have temperature, and those are what we
call real matter?

We assume that DM has positive mass because otherwise
we would have nothing to say about it. Go back to
that example I gave you above. Assuming that dark matter
has negative mass, how would you go about calculating
how much dark matter there is, and where is it located?
Can your theory answer that question?

Quote:

To him, an electron goes into an extraordinary state
when it loses energy to a level below its ground state.

According to Dirac, it goes into a negative energy state.

Yes, but he calls it an extraordinary state and explains that
as "a negative energy state".

No, Dirac calls it "a negative energy state". Go read
that link I gave you. Nowhere does the word "extraordinary"
appear. Dirac even tells you how a particle with negative
energy would behave.

<snip>

Quote:

Note that Dirac says
"One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons
in negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will
not do, because the observed positrons certainly do not
have negative energies."
Positrons are not negative-energy states because they do
not have negative energies. Dirac's "Dark Matter", the electrons
in negative-energy states have negative energy. Of course Dirac
never called this "Dark Matter" and as far as I know he
never really thought about the dark matter astronomers worry about.

Of course not. How could he? No one alive then could have
know about such anomalies.

Actually Fritz Zwicky was the first to point out that
there was not enough mass to account for observed orbits
in 1933, which happens to be the same year Dirac received
the Noble prize for his theory of positrons. But for
whatever reason the 'missing mass' question seemed to sit
on the back burner until the 70's.

Quote:

Since it involves the total loss of energy, the mass
becomes invisible.

Why? Neutrinos have mass and energy but they are
invisible. You cannot see a neutrino.

A neutrino has mass only when a muon neutrino interacts
with a tau and begins to oscillate, from what I've read.

Particles do not change their mass. Neutrino's have mass,
and they always have mass. They do not sometimes have mass,
and sometimes not.

Quote:

That is because for objects to be
visible to us, they must have energy.

No, for an object to be visible to us it must be able
to interact with light, and there must be some light
with which it can interact.

Right. It must be able to interact with light. Exactly what I say.
If DM particles interact w/light, they can be transformed into
RM and become visible to us.

But one of the reasons that it might not interact with
light is that there is no light around for it to interact with.
A lump of matter floating in deep space would be invisible,
because there is not enough light to interact with it
to make it visible. That is what some of the dark matter
may essentially be.

Quote:

To have energy,
they must have temperature, and for that, they must
have +mass, according to E=mc^2 and the Principle
of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Those are
the objects we can see. The DM is the negative mass
matter Dirac refers to and which I propose is the DM
of today that is invisible to us.

What you propose has nothing to do with what the
rest of the world calls dark matter.

Ask me if I care what you think.

You clearly do not care what anybody thinks, as
you insist on using words in a bizarre manner, and
worse pretend that other people are using the words according
to your personal definitions.

Quote:

You have
already agreed that your definition of dark matter
has nothing to do with the standard definition.

There is no std. definition of DM, only those stupid
statements from naked emperors that show little if
any logic or reasonable thought. Believe those dummies
if you wish, but guess what that will make you?

There is a standard definition of dark matter, just
as there is a standard definition of a circle.
Several different people have provided you many different
citations for the standard definition of dark matter.
Here are some more for you:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/da/darkmatt.html
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9362269
http://www.encylopedia.com/html/d/darkmatt.asp

Quote:

Dark matter has positive mass,

No one knows that except you, and you believe what
dummies tell you.

Do you really think that insults bolster your argument?
Do you actually think that calling people dummies somehow makes
you seem smarter?

Quote:

and dark matter
gravitates just like any other matter.

Then why should it be any different that any other matter?

It might not be different than any other matter, other than
it happens to be far away from a light source. You can't
see anything if there is no light. But there is no
reason it cannot be quite different than normal baryonic
matter and still gravitate. Insisting that because
dark matter and normal matter must be identical because
they both gravitate in the same way is like insisting
that protons and positrons must be identicl because
they both have positive charge.

Quote:

That is
how the term is defined.

No, that is how you define it, not me.

That is how everyone but you defines it. You
have agreed that nobody but you thinks that dark matter
has negative mass. Did you forget that? You really
need to remember that whenever you read anything that
mentions 'dark matter'. Just remember they are talking
about the standard positive mass dark matter (PMDM)
not your special negative mass dark matter (NMDM).
You also need to remember that any statements about
PMDM do not necessarily apply to NMDM unless you can
prove it. For example, nobody if you read an article
that says that PMDM was created in the Big Bang, you
cannot use that as evidence that NMDM was created in
the Big Bang.

Quote:

Your definition is also at
odd's with Dirac's where electrons can have negative energy.
You insist that your dark matter cannot have negative
energy, so it cannot be the same stuff Dirac was talking
about.

Now you've taken to out-and-out lying from unrestricted
exaggeration, no? I told you that would corrupt you sooner
than later. I did not say DM cannot have -energy, so that ploy
is just a red herring thrown in to show me I should have mercy
on you since you have nothing left to argue with.

But you do not believe in the existence of negative energy.
How can your dark matter have a property that you do not
believe in? So your position is now that you do not
believe in the existence of negative energy, but dark matter
may have negative energy, even though you do not think
it has negative energy, despite your idea being based
on Dirac's negative energy electrons.

Do you honestly believe that a negative mass can be more than
a positive mass?

Why not?

Because negative numbers are smaller than positive numbers?

I tried to explain to you the context in which Dirac used those
terms, which to me are more descriptive than "Dark Matter".

But the people who are talking about there being more
dark matter than visible matter are not talking about anything
to do with Dirac. You cannot apply your definition
of dark matter to any quote about dark matter that you
read.

I never said they were, so what? You cannot prevent me from

applying any definition I want to anything else I want unless and
until you can show I'm wrong. Just saying I can't do that does
not show anything but your unsupported opinion.

Quote:

snip recap of Dirac's theory

You could have read most of that in that link
I provided you, in Dirac's own words.

I did, long ago.

Putting up my whip and getting back to the issue at hand, I
came to agree with Dirac about negative mass, but since he
did not explain how -mass could have -energy, I left that part
open in my mind. So tell me, anyone, what is -energy?

Why not read what Dirac said about it?

I did, long ago, and he did not explain how -energy exists or

what it is.

Quote:

His particles
have negative energy. He is quite explicit about that.

I told you he said that already, but he did not explain how

-energy can exist nor what it is. Can you? Just because
he said that does not make it true. That is a loose end
that can only be avoided temperorily because sooner or
later it must be tied to an explanation.

Quote:

The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Obviously, you miscomprehended what you read. By
"component", the article refers to the total amount of
all the DM versus all the RM. He is not talking about
individual particles of matter. He should have said,
"The total amount dark matter mass is more than that
of the +mass." You have also misunderstood what
Dirac meant by "negative mass".

Dirac has nothing to do with this. Nobody but you
thinks that dark matter has anything to do with
Dirac's virtual sea of negative energy (yes Dirac
used the term 'negative energy').

But if this a discussion between you and me, and I am
relating Dirac's concepts the issues here, how can this
have nothing to do with Dirac?

But you are interpeting other people's statments
in terms of your own personal theories. The
person who made the statement
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
'visible' component of the universe"
is talking strictly about positive mass.

That's just your interpretation in terms of your unsupported

opinion. Nowhere in there do they say anything about
+mass - you're just making that up.

Quote:

Dirac has
nothing to do with that statement.

Neither do you, but that doesn't make it right or wrong.

How do you think they determined that the dark matter
component has more mass than the visible component?

They guessed at it. I already told you that, but you must

have forgotten it. Based on observations, they guessed it
could be unseen matter causing the anomalies.

Quote:

How did they measure the amount of mass the dark matter
had, if dark matter is invisible and cannot be detected
directly?

They did not do that, you're still in the dark about what

they said. They did not say that - they said there appears
to be more DM than there is RM. From that, idiots added
what I told you was wrong in those refs. you provided and
they're passing it off as facts. If the recent experiment I
told you about holds up, it will be the first confirmation of
what everyone is calling DM. Nothing so far is a fact other
than that such anomalies have been observed, everything
else is theory, suppositions, and conjecture. Stop thinking
all that stuff you've read is already confirmed!

Quote:

Who are you to make
that decision anyway? You who cannot understand
what Dirac meant in using the terms he used?

I understand Dirac just fine. Better than you
apparently, because you do not think that Dirac's "dark matter"
has negative energy, despite the fact that Dirac
clearly says that it does.

So you believe Dirac is right about that and I am wrong,

fine. But I asked you already why you think that is so,
and you have not come up with an answer. You are
saying that DM has -energy but neither you nor Dirac
have explained how that can be, since it bucks the well-
accepted laws of mass and energy.

Quote:

If dark matter has
negative mass, than it cannot have more mass than
the visible component of the universe.

That is your miscomprehension of what you read. You
do not understand your own reference. Your author is
not saying that negative mass has more mass than has
+mass - he is saying that there is more DM mass (neg.
mass), than there is RM (pos. mass). It is clear you
want to learn more, so I am not saying you are dumb.
You just need to learn more, and I am happy to present
you with my ideas, which question all the fairytales that
abound in physics today.

Such delusions of grandeur.

I hoped I could help you see the difference, but your

arguments above do not show you understand what
you read wrongly at first any better now.

Quote:

You just reveal that you simply have no understanding
of what people mean when they say 'dark matter'.

That's a stupid thing for you to say, another one of

your gross exaggerations.

Quote:

I'll
try one last time to explain it to you. Here is a simple
hypothetical situation which captures the basic reason
why dark matter was proposed in the first place.

How would you know that? I already explained that to

you when you were so confused you made a number
of errors in saying what you thought had occurred.

Quote:

Suppose
we observe a lone luminous object, a star perhaps, travelling
in a circle with a radius 200,000,000 km, and a period
of 1 year. There is no other visible object nearby, just
this lone star that goes around and around in circles.
Now we can explain this in a couple of ways
1) the star has thrusters, and is accelerating under
its own power, in which case it is likely not a
star but a spaceship of some sort
2) some totally unknown force is at work that makes
the star move
3) the star is orbitting some body that we, for whatever
reason, cannot see
Explanation 3 is the dark matter hypothesis. The nice thing about 3
is that we can actually figure out some stuff about this
unseen object using our theory of gravity.

According to Kepler's laws (which can be derived from Newton's
laws, and which are also valid according to Einstein's theories
unless extreme speeds and masses are involved) the following
is true for any object in orbit.
T^2 / R^3 = (4 * pi^2) / (G * M )
where T is the period of the orbit, R is the radius, G
is the gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the
object being orbited. In this case, M is the mass of
the dark matter object that we cannot see. Rewriting
the equation we get
M = (4 * pi^2) * R^3 / ( T^2 * G)
R and T are positive numbers by definition (a radius
cannot be negative, and neither can an orbital period).
Therefore M is a positive number. We can even figure
out what positive number it is
M = (4 * pi^2) * (2*10^^3 / (31536000^2 * G)
= 1.18*10^17 kg
So we know how much dark matter there is. We even
know where it is, to a certain degree. The center
of that mass must be located at the center of the circle.
We do not know the dimensions of the dark matter object,
or what it is made of, or why we cannot see it, but we
do know where it is centered, and how much mass it has.

The actual situation and calculations are much more involved,
but it is the same basic idea. And given the assumptions
used and the way the calculation works, the answer will
always be positive.

Positive what? If you keep adding numbers you will

always come up with positive numbers, right?

Quote:

The way dark matter is detected,
and the way we determine how much of it there is, and
where it is, is by assuming that our gravitational theories
are correct, and that dark matter has positive mass that
attracts other mass, just like visible mass.

Alright, then, how do your gravitational theories explain

the anomaly of outer orbiting bodies moving faster than
the inner bodies, contrary to what happens in our solar
system? If there are more g-forces on them than on the
inner ones, and DM is everywhere RM is not, how does
gravitation know where to apply more of its force?

Quote:

And nobody is talking about individual particles
of matter. How could anybody talk about individual
particles of dark matter when nobody knows exactly
what dark matter is made of? The only thing
that can be determined about dark matter is its mass.
It has more mass than the visible universe. The visible
universe has a positive mass. Therefore dark matter
must also have a positive mass.

Obviously, you need to learn some logic. If RM is visible
to us but DM is not, why should we assume they both
have +mass, since we know that we can observe only
objects that have temperature, and those are what we
call real matter?

We assume that DM has positive mass because otherwise
we would have nothing to say about it.

No - you assume that - not anyone else.

Go back to
that example I gave you above. Assuming that dark matter
has negative mass, how would you go about calculating
how much dark matter there is, and where is it located?
Can your theory answer that question?

The new experiment I've mentioned has already done that

by calculating the masses of visible matter against the
amount of g-force required to keep the galaxies together.

Quote:

To him, an electron goes into an extraordinary state
when it loses energy to a level below its ground state.

According to Dirac, it goes into a negative energy state.

Yes, but he calls it an extraordinary state and explains that
as "a negative energy state".

No, Dirac calls it "a negative energy state". Go read
that link I gave you. Nowhere does the word "extraordinary"
appear. Dirac even tells you how a particle with negative
energy would behave.

Well, my ref. has it that he used that phrase, even if yours

does not. You don't know all about Dirac yet, it takes more
than quick scans on the net to cover all his work on this topic.

Quote:

snip

Note that Dirac says
"One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons
in negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will
not do, because the observed positrons certainly do not
have negative energies."
Positrons are not negative-energy states because they do
not have negative energies. Dirac's "Dark Matter", the electrons
in negative-energy states have negative energy. Of course Dirac
never called this "Dark Matter" and as far as I know he
never really thought about the dark matter astronomers worry about.

Of course not. How could he? No one alive then could have
know about such anomalies.

Actually Fritz Zwicky was the first to point out that
there was not enough mass to account for observed orbits
in 1933, which happens to be the same year Dirac received
the Noble prize for his theory of positrons. But for
whatever reason the 'missing mass' question seemed to sit
on the back burner until the 70's.

Yes, but you forgot to credit David Smith for that information.

Since it involves the total loss of energy, the mass
becomes invisible.

Why? Neutrinos have mass and energy but they are
invisible. You cannot see a neutrino.

A neutrino has mass only when a muon neutrino interacts
with a tau and begins to oscillate, from what I've read.

Particles do not change their mass. Neutrino's have mass,
and they always have mass. They do not sometimes have mass,
and sometimes not.

You better read up on the discovery of mass in neutrinos. Or,

find me where it says all that in the discovery research. You
don't seem able to think for yourself well enough to be making
such arguements.

Quote:

That is because for objects to be
visible to us, they must have energy.

No, for an object to be visible to us it must be able
to interact with light, and there must be some light
with which it can interact.

Right. It must be able to interact with light. Exactly what I say.
If DM particles interact w/light, they can be transformed into
RM and become visible to us.

But one of the reasons that it might not interact with
light is that there is no light around for it to interact with.

Right. That happens all the time. That's why space is dark

wherever there is no light for such interactions.

Quote:

A lump of matter floating in deep space would be invisible,
because there is not enough light to interact with it
to make it visible. That is what some of the dark matter
may essentially be.

Wow! You're beginning to see the light! Walk toward it.

To have energy,
they must have temperature, and for that, they must
have +mass, according to E=mc^2 and the Principle
of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Those are
the objects we can see. The DM is the negative mass
matter Dirac refers to and which I propose is the DM
of today that is invisible to us.

What you propose has nothing to do with what the
rest of the world calls dark matter.

Ask me if I care what you think.

You clearly do not care what anybody thinks, as
you insist on using words in a bizarre manner, and
worse pretend that other people are using the words according
to your personal definitions.

And to you "bizarre" means, what? Unless you give an

example, we might think that's just your own unsupported
opinions.

Quote:

You have
already agreed that your definition of dark matter
has nothing to do with the standard definition.

There is no std. definition of DM, only those stupid
statements from naked emperors that show little if
any logic or reasonable thought. Believe those dummies
if you wish, but guess what that will make you?

There is a standard definition of dark matter, just
as there is a standard definition of a circle.
Several different people have provided you many different
citations for the standard definition of dark matter.
Here are some more for you:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/da/darkmatt.html
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9362269
http://www.encylopedia.com/html/d/darkmatt.asp

Okay, I'll look those up and we shall see what we shall see.

Dark matter has positive mass,

No one knows that except you, and you believe what
dummies tell you.

Do you really think that insults bolster your argument?
Do you actually think that calling people dummies somehow makes
you seem smarter?

No, not at all. I am not trying to bolster my arguments. I

believe that those who claim to know certain things should
be prepared to support them. If not, they are dummies.
Not necessarily physics or science dummies, but too dumb
to know better than to make statements like yours above
without providing some argument or ref. for it. It is clear to
me that you believe DM has positive mass, even after you
found out about Dirac's concepts, when you saw you had
been wrong to say no one has ever said anything about
negative mass. Stop making such rash statements and
wild exaggerations, and you will draw less well-aimed fire
from me. You must learn that what you think is so is not
necessarily so.

Quote:

and dark matter
gravitates just like any other matter.

Then why should it be any different that any other matter?

It might not be different than any other matter, other than
it happens to be far away from a light source. You can't
see anything if there is no light. But there is no
reason it cannot be quite different than normal baryonic
matter and still gravitate. Insisting that because
dark matter and normal matter must be identical because
they both gravitate in the same way is like insisting
that protons and positrons must be identicl because
they both have positive charge.

No, that's wrong. It is not like saying that at all. It is like

saying that protons and positrons are both particles but
behave differently.

Quote:

That is
how the term is defined.

No, that is how you define it, not me.

That is how everyone but you defines it.

No, that is how you and a few others define it,

but that is not anywhere close to "a std. definition"
by any means.

Quote:

You
have agreed that nobody but you thinks that dark matter
has negative mass. Did you forget that?

No.

You really
need to remember that whenever you read anything that
mentions 'dark matter'.

I never forget that, not even when I'm not reading about DM.

Just remember they are talking
about the standard positive mass dark matter (PMDM)
not your special negative mass dark matter (NMDM).

No, they're not.

You also need to remember that any statements about
PMDM do not necessarily apply to NMDM unless you can
prove it. For example, nobody if you read an article
that says that PMDM was created in the Big Bang, you
cannot use that as evidence that NMDM was created in
the Big Bang.

No, I have no such need. If I ever read that about +mass

DM, other than your writing, I will not agree with it unless
the author supports that with other than his personal
opinion.

Quote:

Your definition is also at
odd's with Dirac's where electrons can have negative energy.
You insist that your dark matter cannot have negative
energy, so it cannot be the same stuff Dirac was talking
about.

Now you've taken to out-and-out lying from unrestricted
exaggeration, no? I told you that would corrupt you sooner
than later. I did not say DM cannot have -energy, so that ploy
is just a red herring thrown in to show me I should have mercy
on you since you have nothing left to argue with.

But you do not believe in the existence of negative energy.

No. I don't see how that could exist. Tell us how you think

it can exist, other than by saying everyone else believes that.
What is the process involved that causes -energy? What is
there in our experience that we can relate to that?

Quote:

How can your dark matter have a property that you do not
believe in?

It doesn't have such a property.

So your position is now that you do not
believe in the existence of negative energy, but dark matter
may have negative energy, even though you do not think
it has negative energy, despite your idea being based
on Dirac's negative energy electrons.

No, my idea is not based on Dirac's -energy claim. It is

based on well-known interactions that cause transformations.
Simple as that. I can accept the concept of -mass, based on
the observed effects of DM, but I can see a chink in that
armor about energy making up the 90+ percent of mass
needed to cause those effects. That makes no sense,
right? The energy in a mass is tremendous compared to
the mass, but you cannot add that same energy to the size
of the mass to give it more attractive or repulsive force.
That part smells like long-dead fish, but you don't know
enough to question why some things smell bad and others
smell good.

If you want to talk about IRT you should read and understand IRT. In IRT
the
quantity Fab is measured and if Fab is not constant a mean value is used
in
the equation. In the case of the transverse doppler the mean value is at
the
point where the source is directly over the observer.
Which has nothing at all to do with the point of the post you're
"responding" to. Endless evasion is your sole skill. Seto, you may
be a kook but you are also a fraudulent one. Even you must know what
your constant need to evade means.

You just do this for the fun of engaging people. Not an unusual need
and acting the fool is actually not an unusual way to fulfill it. Try
getting out more.

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
I tried to explain to you the context in which Dirac used those
terms, which to me are more descriptive than "Dark Matter".

But the people who are talking about there being more
dark matter than visible matter are not talking about anything
to do with Dirac. You cannot apply your definition
of dark matter to any quote about dark matter that you
read.

I never said they were, so what? You cannot prevent me from
applying any definition I want to anything else I want unless and
until you can show I'm wrong. Just saying I can't do that does
not show anything but your unsupported opinion.

So every time you say dark matter, I will just assume
that you are talking about positive mass dark matter.
You cannot prevent me from applying any definition
I want to your own words, and you apparently do not
think there is anything wrong with purposefully
misinterpreting others.

Quote:

snip recap of Dirac's theory

You could have read most of that in that link
I provided you, in Dirac's own words.

I did, long ago.

As have I. So what was your point?

Quote:

Putting up my whip and getting back to the issue at hand, I
came to agree with Dirac about negative mass, but since he
did not explain how -mass could have -energy, I left that part
open in my mind. So tell me, anyone, what is -energy?

Why not read what Dirac said about it?

I did, long ago, and he did not explain how -energy exists or
what it is.

Did you read that article I gave you? He explains how
particles with negative energy behave. What more do you want?
What is your explanation for how positive energy exists
and what it is?

Quote:

His particles
have negative energy. He is quite explicit about that.

I told you he said that already, but he did not explain how
-energy can exist nor what it is. Can you? Just because
he said that does not make it true. That is a loose end
that can only be avoided temperorily because sooner or
later it must be tied to an explanation.

Can you explain how positive energy exists or what it is?
Once you do that, I will provide a similar explanation
for negative energy.

Quote:

The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Obviously, you miscomprehended what you read. By
"component", the article refers to the total amount of
all the DM versus all the RM. He is not talking about
individual particles of matter. He should have said,
"The total amount dark matter mass is more than that
of the +mass." You have also misunderstood what
Dirac meant by "negative mass".

Dirac has nothing to do with this. Nobody but you
thinks that dark matter has anything to do with
Dirac's virtual sea of negative energy (yes Dirac
used the term 'negative energy').

But if this a discussion between you and me, and I am
relating Dirac's concepts the issues here, how can this
have nothing to do with Dirac?

But you are interpeting other people's statments
in terms of your own personal theories. The
person who made the statement
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
'visible' component of the universe"
is talking strictly about positive mass.

That's just your interpretation in terms of your unsupported
opinion. Nowhere in there do they say anything about
+mass - you're just making that up.

You are just making up negative mass. You agree that nobody
but you thinks that dark matter has negative mass. Quit
being so dishonest by falsely attaching your ideas to
the words of others.

Quote:

Dirac has
nothing to do with that statement.

Neither do you, but that doesn't make it right or wrong.

How do you think they determined that the dark matter
component has more mass than the visible component?

They guessed at it. I already told you that, but you must
have forgotten it. Based on observations, they guessed it
could be unseen matter causing the anomalies.

How did they guess? You really do not know, do you?

Quote:

How did they measure the amount of mass the dark matter
had, if dark matter is invisible and cannot be detected
directly?

They did not do that, you're still in the dark about what
they said. They did not say that - they said there appears
to be more DM than there is RM. From that, idiots added
what I told you was wrong in those refs. you provided and
they're passing it off as facts. If the recent experiment I
told you about holds up, it will be the first confirmation of
what everyone is calling DM. Nothing so far is a fact other
than that such anomalies have been observed, everything
else is theory, suppositions, and conjecture. Stop thinking
all that stuff you've read is already confirmed!

No, they have calculated very precisely how much dark matter
is needed to explain the observed gravitational effects.
You are correct in that the only fact is that such anomalies
have been observed, and that dark matter is just a conjecture.
But it is conjectured to have positive mass, and using that
conjecture we can conclude how much dark matter there is.
You have been told that several times already. You really need to
read about this stuff.

Quote:

Who are you to make
that decision anyway? You who cannot understand
what Dirac meant in using the terms he used?

I understand Dirac just fine. Better than you
apparently, because you do not think that Dirac's "dark matter"
has negative energy, despite the fact that Dirac
clearly says that it does.

So you believe Dirac is right about that and I am wrong,
fine. But I asked you already why you think that is so,
and you have not come up with an answer. You are
saying that DM has -energy but neither you nor Dirac
have explained how that can be, since it bucks the well-
accepted laws of mass and energy.

What well accepted laws of mass and energy? You like
to parrot E=mc^2. Well if dark matter has negative
mass, as you insist it does, then it must have negative
energy. c^2 is always positive. So if m, is negative,
mc^2 is negative.

But again, before anyone can explain to you how something
can have negative energy, you need to explain how
something can have positive energy, as you seem to have
your own private meaning of 'energy'.

<snip>

Quote:

I hoped I could help you see the difference, but your
arguments above do not show you understand what
you read wrongly at first any better now.

You just reveal that you simply have no understanding
of what people mean when they say 'dark matter'.

That's a stupid thing for you to say, another one of
your gross exaggerations.

No, it is obvious from the statements you make. It is
clear to anyone who who reads your comments that you
really have no idea what physicists mean by 'dark matter'.

Quote:

I'll
try one last time to explain it to you. Here is a simple
hypothetical situation which captures the basic reason
why dark matter was proposed in the first place.

How would you know that? I already explained that to
you when you were so confused you made a number
of errors in saying what you thought had occurred.

How would I know why dark matter was proposed in the
first place? Because the history is perfectly clear.
People made observations that could only be explained by
current gravitational theories if we assumed there was
additional unseen mass.

Quote:

Suppose
we observe a lone luminous object, a star perhaps, travelling
in a circle with a radius 200,000,000 km, and a period
of 1 year. There is no other visible object nearby, just
this lone star that goes around and around in circles.
Now we can explain this in a couple of ways
1) the star has thrusters, and is accelerating under
its own power, in which case it is likely not a
star but a spaceship of some sort
2) some totally unknown force is at work that makes
the star move
3) the star is orbitting some body that we, for whatever
reason, cannot see
Explanation 3 is the dark matter hypothesis. The nice thing about 3
is that we can actually figure out some stuff about this
unseen object using our theory of gravity.

According to Kepler's laws (which can be derived from Newton's
laws, and which are also valid according to Einstein's theories
unless extreme speeds and masses are involved) the following
is true for any object in orbit.
T^2 / R^3 = (4 * pi^2) / (G * M )
where T is the period of the orbit, R is the radius, G
is the gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the
object being orbited. In this case, M is the mass of
the dark matter object that we cannot see. Rewriting
the equation we get
M = (4 * pi^2) * R^3 / ( T^2 * G)
R and T are positive numbers by definition (a radius
cannot be negative, and neither can an orbital period).
Therefore M is a positive number. We can even figure
out what positive number it is
M = (4 * pi^2) * (2*10^^3 / (31536000^2 * G)
= 1.18*10^17 kg
So we know how much dark matter there is. We even
know where it is, to a certain degree. The center
of that mass must be located at the center of the circle.
We do not know the dimensions of the dark matter object,
or what it is made of, or why we cannot see it, but we
do know where it is centered, and how much mass it has.

The actual situation and calculations are much more involved,
but it is the same basic idea. And given the assumptions
used and the way the calculation works, the answer will
always be positive.

Positive what? If you keep adding numbers you will
always come up with positive numbers, right?

Positive mass. We are calculating a mass, and the
result will always be positive.
M = (4 * pi^2) * R^3 / ( T^2 * G)
M is a mass, and the value of M will always be positive.
And yes, if you keep adding positive numbers, you will
always come up with positive numbers.

Quote:

The way dark matter is detected,
and the way we determine how much of it there is, and
where it is, is by assuming that our gravitational theories
are correct, and that dark matter has positive mass that
attracts other mass, just like visible mass.

Alright, then, how do your gravitational theories explain
the anomaly of outer orbiting bodies moving faster than
the inner bodies, contrary to what happens in our solar
system? If there are more g-forces on them than on the
inner ones, and DM is everywhere RM is not, how does
gravitation know where to apply more of its force?

DM is not everywhere RM is not. That is your assumption.
That is not part of the definition of dark matter. Again,
your are willy nilly mixing in your ideas which have
nothing to do with dark matter. Nobody thinks that dark matter
is everywhere real matter is not. You have no source for that
opinion. It is just something you made up.

I just showed you a simple example of how they explain
the anomaly of out orbiting bodies moving faster than
the inner bodies (which is not quite right anyway, but close
enought). All you need to do is solve the equations
to determine a distribution of mass that results in
a gravitational field that would produce orbits
that match the observation. That tells you where
the dark matter is. It is not 'everywhere RM' is not.
That is just something you made up. Dark matter is in
very specific locations, assuming of course that our
theories of gravity are correct.

Quote:

And nobody is talking about individual particles
of matter. How could anybody talk about individual
particles of dark matter when nobody knows exactly
what dark matter is made of? The only thing
that can be determined about dark matter is its mass.
It has more mass than the visible universe. The visible
universe has a positive mass. Therefore dark matter
must also have a positive mass.

Obviously, you need to learn some logic. If RM is visible
to us but DM is not, why should we assume they both
have +mass, since we know that we can observe only
objects that have temperature, and those are what we
call real matter?

We assume that DM has positive mass because otherwise
we would have nothing to say about it.

No - you assume that - not anyone else.

Everybody assumes that. You have already admitted
that nobody but you thinks that dark matter has negative
mass.

From elsewhere in the thread:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

> stephen@nomail.com wrote:
>> Your own words can never provide support for whether
>> or not scientists use the words 'dark matter' to describe
>> matter with negative mass.

> You're making things up, or you're more confused than ever. I
> did not say my words support that at all. I said I am the only
> one who uses it that way, in agreement with your statements to
> that effect.

You said "I said I am the only one who uses it that way"
where it refers to 'dark matter'. Or have you changed your
mind again?

Quote:

Go back to
that example I gave you above. Assuming that dark matter
has negative mass, how would you go about calculating
how much dark matter there is, and where is it located?
Can your theory answer that question?

The new experiment I've mentioned has already done that
by calculating the masses of visible matter against the
amount of g-force required to keep the galaxies together.

What new experiment? I want to see your calculation
for the problem I posed. How much dark matter is needed,
and where is it located?

<snip>

Quote:

No, Dirac calls it "a negative energy state". Go read
that link I gave you. Nowhere does the word "extraordinary"
appear. Dirac even tells you how a particle with negative
energy would behave.

Well, my ref. has it that he used that phrase, even if yours
does not. You don't know all about Dirac yet, it takes more
than quick scans on the net to cover all his work on this topic.

My reference is Dirac himself. You were quoting someone other
than Dirac. Dirac explains how the negative energy solutions
are a result of the Dirac equation, and how they led to
the discovery of the positron.

Quote:

snip

Note that Dirac says
"One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons
in negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will
not do, because the observed positrons certainly do not
have negative energies."
Positrons are not negative-energy states because they do
not have negative energies. Dirac's "Dark Matter", the electrons
in negative-energy states have negative energy. Of course Dirac
never called this "Dark Matter" and as far as I know he
never really thought about the dark matter astronomers worry about.

Of course not. How could he? No one alive then could have
know about such anomalies.

Actually Fritz Zwicky was the first to point out that
there was not enough mass to account for observed orbits
in 1933, which happens to be the same year Dirac received
the Noble prize for his theory of positrons. But for
whatever reason the 'missing mass' question seemed to sit
on the back burner until the 70's.

Yes, but you forgot to credit David Smith for that information.

Why would I credit David Smith for something I already knew?
David Smith was kind enough to find a reference that showed
that Zwicky was actually the first to use the phrase 'dark matter'.
I already knew that he was the first to propose there
was missing matter in the Universe, but I did not know
what phrase he used to describe it.

Quote:

Since it involves the total loss of energy, the mass
becomes invisible.

Why? Neutrinos have mass and energy but they are
invisible. You cannot see a neutrino.

A neutrino has mass only when a muon neutrino interacts
with a tau and begins to oscillate, from what I've read.

Particles do not change their mass. Neutrino's have mass,
and they always have mass. They do not sometimes have mass,
and sometimes not.

You better read up on the discovery of mass in neutrinos. Or,
find me where it says all that in the discovery research. You
don't seem able to think for yourself well enough to be making
such arguements.

Do you think particles change mass? They do not.
Why don't you for once support your assertion. Find
a cite supporting your claim that neutrino's only
have mass some of the time.

Quote:

That is because for objects to be
visible to us, they must have energy.

No, for an object to be visible to us it must be able
to interact with light, and there must be some light
with which it can interact.

Right. It must be able to interact with light. Exactly what I say.
If DM particles interact w/light, they can be transformed into
RM and become visible to us.

But one of the reasons that it might not interact with
light is that there is no light around for it to interact with.

Right. That happens all the time. That's why space is dark
wherever there is no light for such interactions.

Yes. So a piece of matter floating around where there
is no light is going to be invisible. There does not
have to be anything special about it. You would be invisible
if you were floating around where there is no light.
Your mass would not become negative just because there is
no light.

Quote:

A lump of matter floating in deep space would be invisible,
because there is not enough light to interact with it
to make it visible. That is what some of the dark matter
may essentially be.

Wow! You're beginning to see the light! Walk toward it.

You were the one denying the possibility that dark matter
could just be ordinary matter. In fact you said only
a fool would believe that. Now here you are agreeing that
some dark matter may just be lumps of stuff floating in
deep space that are invisible because there is no light
with which to interact.

<snip>

Quote:

Do you really think that insults bolster your argument?
Do you actually think that calling people dummies somehow makes
you seem smarter?

No, not at all. I am not trying to bolster my arguments. I
believe that those who claim to know certain things should
be prepared to support them. If not, they are dummies.
Not necessarily physics or science dummies, but too dumb
to know better than to make statements like yours above
without providing some argument or ref. for it. It is clear to
me that you believe DM has positive mass, even after you
found out about Dirac's concepts, when you saw you had
been wrong to say no one has ever said anything about
negative mass. Stop making such rash statements and
wild exaggerations, and you will draw less well-aimed fire
from me. You must learn that what you think is so is not
necessarily so.

Once again: Dirac has nothing to do with dark matter.
You are lying when you claim that I did not know about
Dirac. I have known about Dirac for a long time. He just has
nothing to do with dark matter, so all your talk of Dirac is
irrelevant. It simply has nothing to do with the concept of
dark matter. Nobody is talking about Dirac's sea of negative
energy when they talk about dark matter. Nobody is talking
about negative mass when they talk about dark matter. There is
no reason to mention Dirac at all when discussing dark matter.

Quote:

and dark matter
gravitates just like any other matter.

Then why should it be any different that any other matter?

It might not be different than any other matter, other than
it happens to be far away from a light source. You can't
see anything if there is no light. But there is no
reason it cannot be quite different than normal baryonic
matter and still gravitate. Insisting that because
dark matter and normal matter must be identical because
they both gravitate in the same way is like insisting
that protons and positrons must be identicl because
they both have positive charge.

No, that's wrong. It is not like saying that at all. It is like
saying that protons and positrons are both particles but
behave differently.

There is no reason to think that visible matter and dark matter
must be identical just because they both gravitate. Exotic
dark matter is clearly different, because it does not interact
electromagnetically, whereas visible matter does. Whether exotic
dark matter exists or not is still unknown. Baryonic dark matter is
only different from visible matter due to location. It just
happens to be in a dark part of the Universe. There is absolutely
no reason to suppose any dark matter has negative mass, as that
is clearly totally at odds with the concept of dark matter.

Quote:

That is
how the term is defined.

No, that is how you define it, not me.

That is how everyone but you defines it.

No, that is how you and a few others define it,
but that is not anywhere close to "a std. definition"
by any means.

"A few others"? Find a single definition that differs.
And no, Dirac was not talking about dark matter. If there
is no consensus on the definition of dark matter, as you claim,
it should be easy for you to find an actual source that defines dark
matter in a different way. But you have failed to do that,
despite repeated requests.

Quote:

You
have agreed that nobody but you thinks that dark matter
has negative mass. Did you forget that?

No.

No, you did not forget that, or no, nobody but you thinks
that dark matter has negative mass? You seem to be contradicting
yourself from paragraph to paragraph.

Quote:

You really
need to remember that whenever you read anything that
mentions 'dark matter'.

I never forget that, not even when I'm not reading about DM.

Then why do you claim that when somebody says "most of the
mass of the galaxy is dark matter" they are saying dark matter
has negative mass?

Quote:

Just remember they are talking
about the standard positive mass dark matter (PMDM)
not your special negative mass dark matter (NMDM).

No, they're not.

No, they are not talking about PMDM, or
No, they are not talking about NMDM?

You seem to be contradicting yourself again.

Quote:

You also need to remember that any statements about
PMDM do not necessarily apply to NMDM unless you can
prove it. For example, nobody if you read an article
that says that PMDM was created in the Big Bang, you
cannot use that as evidence that NMDM was created in
the Big Bang.

No, I have no such need. If I ever read that about +mass
DM, other than your writing, I will not agree with it unless
the author supports that with other than his personal
opinion.

But you have admitted that nobody but you thinks that
dark matter has negative mass. So when you are reading
something about dark matter that was not written by you,
then it must be the case that the author does not
think that dark matter has negative mass. This is
simple logic.

Quote:

Your definition is also at
odd's with Dirac's where electrons can have negative energy.
You insist that your dark matter cannot have negative
energy, so it cannot be the same stuff Dirac was talking
about.

Now you've taken to out-and-out lying from unrestricted
exaggeration, no? I told you that would corrupt you sooner
than later. I did not say DM cannot have -energy, so that ploy
is just a red herring thrown in to show me I should have mercy
on you since you have nothing left to argue with.

But you do not believe in the existence of negative energy.

No. I don't see how that could exist. Tell us how you think
it can exist, other than by saying everyone else believes that.
What is the process involved that causes -energy? What is
there in our experience that we can relate to that?

Go read Dirac. By the way, Dirac's ideas are considered old
fashion, and his ideas of 'negative energy' are no longer
standard. Nobody but you thinks 'negative mass' or 'negative
energy' have anything to do with 'dark matter', so my beliefs
on the subject are irrelevant. You are the one who claims
that you are using Dirac's ideas. Dirac's ideas include
negative energy. You argument is with Dirac. Everybody else
thinks that dark matter has postive mass and positive energy,
so there is no need to explain negative energy, as it has
nothing to do with dark matter.

Quote:

How can your dark matter have a property that you do not
believe in?

It doesn't have such a property.

Just a couple of paragraphs ago you said:

Quote:

Now you've taken to out-and-out lying from unrestricted
exaggeration, no? I told you that would corrupt you sooner
than later. I did not say DM cannot have -energy, so that ploy
is just a red herring thrown in to show me I should have mercy
on you since you have nothing left to argue with.

I was lying because you "did not say DM cannot have -energy".
But now you say that it does not have negative energy.
Is your position that dark matter does not have negative
energy, but it could have negative energy? What does that mean?

Quote:

So your position is now that you do not
believe in the existence of negative energy, but dark matter
may have negative energy, even though you do not think
it has negative energy, despite your idea being based
on Dirac's negative energy electrons.

No, my idea is not based on Dirac's -energy claim. It is
based on well-known interactions that cause transformations.
Simple as that. I can accept the concept of -mass, based on
the observed effects of DM, but I can see a chink in that
armor about energy making up the 90+ percent of mass
needed to cause those effects. That makes no sense,
right?

Why does it make no sense? By the way, where did the statement
"energy making up the 90+ percent of mass needed to cause those effects"
come from? Dark matter is believed to make up 90% (or more) of
the matter of the universe.

Quote:

The energy in a mass is tremendous compared to
the mass, but you cannot add that same energy to the size
of the mass to give it more attractive or repulsive force.

This is just something you have made up that has nothing
to do with dark matter. Dark matter has mass. It gravitates.
It attracts other matter. That is all that is needed for the
theory.

Quote:

That part smells like long-dead fish, but you don't know
enough to question why some things smell bad and others
smell good.

You really should not base your arguments on things you
do not understand. You simply do not understand what
dark matter is. You have made up some convoluted personal
theory that uses the phrase 'dark matter', but it has
nothing to do with the 'dark matter' the rest of the world
is talking about.

You still have never provided a source for your claim that
dark matter is everywhere that real matter is not. Will
you admit that that too is your own personal theory?